TO  MY  FRIENDS  AND  PATRONS: 


THE  present  pamphlet  of  PA¬ 
LESTRA  contains  Nos.  23— 
24,  which  in  its  Latin  text 
mb  races  all  the  subjects  I  had  intended 
b  treat  in  Part  I,  but  I  regret  that  I 
ould  not  bring,  in  all  the  English  expla¬ 
nations  of  the  grammatical  principles, 
so  that  much  of  the  Adverbiis,  all  the 
Pra^positiones  and  Coniunctiones  had  to 
be  left  over,  to  be  treated  in  the  nexf 
issue.  That  same  pamphlet,  Nos.  25—26, 
will  also  start  Part  II,  in  which  the  gram¬ 
matical  portion  will  contain  the  Versus 
Memoriales  of  Emmanvel  Alvarvs, 
the  teacher  of  Latin  of  all  generations 
of  all  countries  since  the  days  of  Refor¬ 
mation  up  to  my  time,  and  including  me. 

Several  numbers  of  Palaestra  had  been 
exhausted,  but  I  have  got  them  all  re¬ 
printed,  so  that  new  subscribers  may  se¬ 
cure  complete  sets  as  far  as  published- 
by  either  sending  cash  orders  of  $5.00 
for  the  complete  work,  or  $2.50,  as  a 
first  installment;  I  shall  mail  in  both 
cases  all  numbers  issued  at  the  date. 

*  ^ 

* 

No.  4  of  the  Fabulx  Tusculanx  will 
also  soon  appear  with  very  choice  con¬ 
tents,  of  which  I  mention  here  Cicada 
&  Noctua,  Aper  &  Vulpes,  Leo  &  Ra- 
na,  Ansenres  &  Grues ,  Puer  Mendax , 
&.c.  This  enterprise  has  been  undertaken 
to  supply  teachers  of  Latin  with  ready 
material  to  enliven  class  work  by  telling 
stories  in  Latin.  It  is  not  a  business  ven¬ 
ture,  but  a  matter  of  principle,  for  I  am 
giving  away  the  whole  work  entirely 
gratis  to  willing  and  asking  teachers. 
Other  people  may  have  them  at  10  cents 
each  number.  These  fables  are  not  re¬ 


prints  or  translations  of  ^Esopus  or  co‘ 
pies  of  Phaedrus,  but  freely  rewritten  in 
narrative  form,  in  easier  Latin  which 
any  teacher  can  understand,  and  for  his 
accommodation  Latin  notes  and  para¬ 
phrasing  some  sentences  are  added; 
while  nearly  all  words  of  the  text  are 
repeated  in  a  lexicographic  order  after 
each  lesson,  and  questions  are  added,  so 
as  to  offer  safe  guiding  in  putting  ques¬ 
tions  to  his  classes. 

*  .  * 

* 

Of  the  serial  Mount  Hope  Classics, 
of  which  Pericla  Navarchi  Magonis, 
published  last  winter,  was  the  first  vo¬ 
lume,  has  just  been  published  another, 
the  Mysterium  Arcx  Boule,  a  bound 
volume  of  VI  +  320  pp.,  by  Burton  E. 
Stevenson,  (by  Messrs.  Dodd,  Mead  &f 
Co.,  New  York),  translated  b^||g| 
Latin,  privately  published 
malee  Prentice,  Esq.,  37  Wall  Street, 
New  York  City,  price  $3.50,  while  they 
last.  Only  250  copies  have  been  printed, 
and  only  a  portion  of  them  is  offered  for 
sale.  The  work  is  a  very  clever  detective 
story,  entirely  up-to-date,  which  means 
that  a  number  of  foot-notes  had  to  be 
added  on  account  of  new  Latin  termino¬ 
logy  to  express  the  most  modern  con¬ 
ceptions, 

*  .  * 

* 

The  Acta  Societatis  Gentium  Latinx , 
is  the  official  publication  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Latin  Society,  Inc.,  only  4 
pp.,  imperial  8°  is  obtainable  gratis  by 
anybody  interested  in  our  work,  by 
writing  to  C handler  Davis,  Esq.,  Con¬ 
sulting  Engineer,  No.  1  Broadway,  New 
York  City. 


WHAT  our  schoolmen  do  not 

KNOW. 


The  Latin  faculty  of  the  College  of  a  great 
Western  State  University  is  experimenting 
with  PaeaEsTKa.  The  teachers  have  selected 
six  boys  and  girls  from  the  city  High  Schools 
for  the  purpose  of  drilling  them  in  Latin 
speech.  If  the  experiment  turns  out  well,  to 
the  faculty’s  satisfaction,  this  m'ethod  is  to  be 
recommended  by  the  faculty  to  the  State  Board 
of  Education,  to  be  universally  adopted  for  all 
the  High  Schools  throughout  the  State. 

1  mention  this  fact  so  that  other  earnest 
teachers  may  feel  encouraged  in  the  same  di¬ 
rection.  The  teachers  usually  lack  a  sufficiently 
strong  confidence  in  their  own  ability  success¬ 
fully  to  Undertake  such  an  enterprise,  because 
they  have  not  been  professionally  and  prac¬ 
tically  trained  in  the  skill  of  speaking  Latin 
With  ease.  I  do  not  think,  however,  that  the 
best  element  of  our  teachers  lack  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  mechanism  of  the  language;  they 
only  lack  practice  and  example.  The  means 
I  am  offering  to  remedy  this  fault  are  both 
practical  and  adequate.  The  fundamental  de- 
iciency  is  riot  in  the  lack  of  ability,  iOr  oppor-. 

he  abstract,  but  very  largely  in  the 
is,  as~  if  Latin  were  a  mere  peda- 
gogiEfT conrrivance  for  “mental  gymnastics”  in 
its  declensions  and  conjugations,  and  helps 
to  “English  spelling,”  while  the  Roman  au¬ 
thors,  or  some  of  them,  called  “the  Classics,” 
are  devices  for  translating  and  talking  Eng¬ 
lish.  While  teachers  are  allowed  to  thrive 
on  such  programs,  the -largest  majority  will 
skip  along  silently,  and  heed  not  the 'bitter 
criticism  of  the  community;  the  rest  busies  it¬ 
self  with  writing  apologies  and  gathering  argu¬ 
ments  for  proving  the  utility  of  Latin,  with¬ 
out  moving  their  fingers  to  improve  their 
knowledge,  “let  the  devil  take  the  hindmost.” 

Since,  however,  even  our  best  teachers  do 
not  in  fact  realize  why  through  all  these  cen¬ 
turies  all  nations  have  retained  Latin  as  the 
centre  of  our  Roman  civilization ;  and,  since 
the  question  is  rapidly  approaching  to  a’  defin¬ 
ite  issue,  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  issue. 

In  the  face  of  the  victorious  swords  of  the 
Central  Powers,  wielded  by  the  schoolmasters, 
both  in  England  and  here  people  are  “mobil¬ 
izing”  their  resources  in  finance,  in  industries, 
and  the  war-cry  of  “preparedness”  is  being 
shouted  in  the  market  places.  But  in  Eng¬ 
land  people  see  more  clearly  that  it  is  the 
schoolmaster  again  who  is  at  work,  and  the 
London  Times’  Educational  Supplement  '  for 
December  7th,  1915,  sounds  the  alarm  in  four 
articles,  calling  for  a  revolution  in  education. 


One  of  these  articles  is  a  contribution  by  t 
Vice  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Leec 
two  others  are  editorials,  and  one  is  a  “lett 
to  the  Editor.” 


The  first  writer  seems  to  lose  his  way 
words  while  trying  to  point  out  the  rive  defe< 
of  the  English  system  of  education.  The  fi: 
of  these  defects  is  “the  absence  of  an  exactii 
standard  in  the  training  of  the  mind.” 
good  statement,  to  which  I  shall  soon  retui 
The  first  editorial  is  “Revolution  on  Seconda 
Education.”  In  this  the  main  contention 
the  writer  is  that  “secondary”  education,  whi 
he  (rightfully)  preiers  to  call  “intermediate 
should  be  nationalised ,  and  oe  made  obng 
tory.  He  approves*  the  place  of  the  “classic 
in  education,  but  significantly  adds:  “B 
nevertheless,  it  is  the  teacher,  not  the  wa 
that  really  matters,”  and  concludes:  “The  cm 
cisms  aimed  at  our  proposals  convince  us  mo 
than  ever  that  an  educational  revolution 
necessary.”  The  second  editorial  bears  tl 
caption  “Philosophy  for  Parents.”  The  writ' 
or  the  article,  like  everybody  born  in  the  Eni 
lish  language,  does  not  really  mean  Philo  soph 
but  the  effects  of  training  in  Philosophy, 
shall  refer  to  this  subject  presently.  The  co 
respondent,  too,  employs  too  many  words  1 
bring  out  the  main  thought,  that  there  are  3t 
Educational  Committees,  and  a  large  numb 
of  lesser  authorities  controlling  school  matte: 
in  England,  and  so  responsibility  is  split  tc 
much.  A  Minister  of  Public  Education  ougt 
to  De  invested  with  more  sweeping,  thoug 
not  absolute,  authority. 

To  sum  it  up  all :  1.  English  education  lacl 
set  standards ,  i.  e.,  standards  for  all  grades  < 
schools,  in  curricula,  in  text-books,  in  qualifies 
tions  of  teachers,  in  preparedness  of  thos 
entering  the  universities,  and  in  conferring  dt 
grees. 


2.  England  needs  a  nationalizing  of  her  ii 
termediate,  or  middle  schools.  There  are  thri 
grades  of  schools ;  the  elementary,  the  middl 
and  high  educational  schools.  To  the  fir 
group,  in  America,  belond  the  gramnu 
schools ;  to  the  second,  the  high  schools  an 
colleges,  as  they  are  but  the  upper  four  grad* 
of  a  high  school,  all  else  in  them  in  Americ 
is  a  usurpation  and  confusion  of  universit 
rights  and  the  misunderstanding  of  the  hiei 
achy  of  knowledge ;  to  the  third  group,  th.t 
of  the  high  education,  belong  the  universit 
and  the  Polytechnicum  (in  America  als 
usurped  in  equal  manner,  and  for  the  sam 
reason,  by  the  university).  A  nation  that  i 
not  indifferent  towards  its  future,  certain! 
it  must  nationalize  all  its  schools,  so  that  thes 
be  subjected  to  the  same  public  authorities  ‘o 


e  State,  and  uniform  standards,  set  by  the 

/ 

ate. 

4  '  “Classical”  education  should  remain,  be- 
use  “in  the’  hands  of  skilled  teachers  it 
•ings  the  scholar’s  mind  into  direct  contact 
ith&  the  genius  of  the  great  writers  of  great 
,es.”  Mark  the  plural!  The  writer  meant 
mply  the  Latin  and  Greek  Languages ?  and 
etters,  not  the  few  so-called  “classical  au- 
iors,  but  all  great  authors  of  all  great  ages, 
his,  precisely,  is  the  dead  line,  which  is  re- 
lonsible  for  the  decay  in  education  in  all 
ie  world,  in  the  English-speaking  in  particu- 
r.  The  unanimous  agreement  of  the  nations 
i  preserving  Latin  and  Greek  did  not  aim  at 
jelling,  parsing,  translating  passages  of  a  few 
x>ks,  or  at  writing  criticisms,  dissertations  on 
I;  ne,  quo  minus,  “cum”  constructions,  archa- 
ms,  respelling'  words,  names  of  Romans,  and 
ie  like  puerilities,  but  they  aimed  at  the  pre- 
jrvation  of  Latin  speech,  Latin  writing,  as 
v  illustrated  by  the  examples  of  men  like 
rirchow,’  Mommsen,  corresponding  with  their 
mnarch,  Emperor  William,  in  Latin  ;■  or  as 
'sar  Ferdinand  of  Bulgariar-greeting  Emperor 
Villiam  at  Nish  in  Latin:  “Ave  Imperator, 
aeser  &  Rex,  znctor  &  gloriosus!  Ex  Nissa 
ntiqua  onincs  Orientis  populi  tc  saluiant  re~ 
'cmptorem  f  erentem  oppre-ssis  ■■  prosperitatem 
tque  salutem.  Vivas!”  When  our  rulers, 
iplomats  and  statesmen  cannot  do  this  much, 
hen  Latin  is  only  a  subterfuge  and  a  fraud, 
ur  teachers  palming  off  gold  brick  on  a  credu- 
aus  public. 

5.  England  has  not  the  “skilled -teachers.” 
Neither  do  we  have  them.  Such  teachers  can 
■e  only  turned'  out  by  professional  Latin  and 
yreek  training  schools,  which  neither  of  us 
ias.  Young  men  are  appointed  to  teach  with 
t,  paper-qualification,  i.  e.,  a  college  diploma, 
vhich  does  not  qualify  for  teaching  any  more 
lian  for  practicing  law  or  medicine.  Being 
hus  unqualified,  the  teacher  must  resort  to 
mbterfuges,  evasions  and  philology,  if  he 
neans  to  hold  his  place.  This  is  all  the  more 
jasy,  since  neither  the  State,  nor  the  municipal- 
ty,  or  corporations  that  employ  him,  have 
‘xpert  inspectors  either  to  look  into  the  qual- 
ty  of  work  done,  or  to  set  standards  for  him. 
While  steamers;  boilers,  elevators,  banks,  etc., 
ire  more  or  less  controlled  by  inspection, 
:eaching  of  Latin  and  Greek  is  free  to  all, 
lobody  is  looking  at  the  fingers,  and  so  it  is 
small  wonder  if  such  teaching  falls  in  line 
with  the  adulteration  of  food,  drugs,  measures 

^PHaOSOPHY  FOR  THE'  PARENTS. 

All  these  causes  of  the  failure  of  education 
in  the. English-speaking  countries  are  ,not  the 
first  and  fundamental  .ones;*  they  are  the 


secondary  causes,  ,or  consequences  of  the  ini¬ 
tial  ones.  . 

The  first  and  fundamental  cause  is  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  English  mind  averse  to  pains¬ 
taking,  detailed  and  dogged  determination  to 
study  a  thing  in  detail.  The  second  short- 
coming  is  the  lack  Of  dignity,  whereby  adults 
play,  and  play  is  exalted,  carried  on  with  un¬ 
reasoning  ostentation,  setting  the  wqist  con¬ 
ceivable  example  to  induce  aveision  fiom 
study.  As  an  outgrowth  of  this  immorality  is 
the  desire  to  reach  a  certain  end  without  the. 
intervening  stages,  “get  rich  quick!  Thus, 
students  run  to  Gerniciny  not  for  education, 
but  for  “degrees.”  Still  another  cause  is  that 
all  children  begin  schooling  too  late.  And  still 
another  is  the  almost  total  absence  of  home- 
education,  home-discipline,  a  monkey-love,  or 
affectation  of  love,  of  children,  depriving  them 
of  all  restraint,  all  good  example,  all  parental 
authority. 

When  such  children,  which  have  never  tasted 
severe  study,  discipline,  restraint,  authority, 
having  spent  a  life  in  “ponies,”  subterfuges, 
evasions,  games,  plays,  “mirth”  and  amuse¬ 
ments,  themselves  are  appointed  to  a  ^  job, 
can  they  be  expected  to  have  acquired  ski" 
in  anything  sober?  He  has  never  realized 
what  teaching  and  education  meanL,imtil_Jiq-. 
is  to  deliver  his  first  “lecture.”  He  was  never 
“taught,”  he  has  only  “heard  lectures.”  He 
will  never  teach,  he  will  lecture,  i.  e.,  he  will 
preach,  and  assign  lessons.  He  knows  no  lan¬ 
guage,  least  of  all  Latin.  W  ith  no  home  edu¬ 
cation,  with  overburdened  and  long  dragged 
out  primary  education,  with  uncontrolled  pri¬ 
vate  secondary  education,  no  nation  can  ex¬ 
pect  crops  of  trained  and  “skilled”  secondary 
teachers;  and  so,  if  a  nation  knows  enough 
assuredly  it  will  not  jeopardize  its  destiny  by 
leaving  its  secondary  education  to  the  uncer¬ 
tainties  of  private  enterprise.  For,  unless  a 
responsible  body  of  experts  set  the  standards, 
and  prescribe  the  curricula,  subjects,  like  lan¬ 
guages  and  Philosophy,  where  detailed  knowl¬ 
edge  is  required,  and  no  “lectures”  can  be  sub¬ 
stituted,  are  sure  to  be  omitted,  or  if  they  can¬ 
not  be  so  omitted,  as  in  the  case  of  languages, 
philology  will  be  smuggled  in,  and  Latin 
smothered. 

To  illustrate  my  .point,  and  to  show  why  the 
Parents  do  not  get  the  Philosophy  the  TIMES' 
editorial  demands,  I  insert  a  letter  clipped 
from . the  New  York  EVENING  POST: 


“TO  THE  EDITOR  OF  .  THE 
.  EVENING  POST: 


“Sir:  I  write  a  few  hasty  notes  on 
the  letter  of  your  correspondent,  Jo- 


4  — 


seph  Dick,  Herscbel’s  discource  is 
easily  procured.  See  the  ‘Principles  of 
Science,’  by  Stanley  Jevons.  Watt’s 
‘Logic’  I  have  read  here  in  Latin.  The 
copy  is  in  the  Columbia  College  Li¬ 
brary.  De  Morgan’s  ‘Formal  Logic’ 
is  rare.  There  is  a  copy  in  the  Mer¬ 
cantile  Library.  Dr.  Whewell’s  works, 

I  think,  can  be  obtained  from  Leary 
&  Stewart,  Ninth  and  Market  Streets, 
Philadelphia.  Spencer  Baynes  pub¬ 
lished  a  translation  of  the  ‘Port  Royal 
Logic.  I  have  not  been  able  to  obtain 
it.  See  his  ‘Essay  on  the  Quantifica¬ 
tion  of  the  Predicate,’  London,  circa 
1835,  and  Sir  W.  Hamilton’s  works. 

If  I  might  advise,  your  correspondent 
will  find  much  to  interest  him  in 
Wundt’s  ‘Logic;’  ‘Sigwart,'  translated 
by  Miss  Dendy ;  in  Whately  and  Je¬ 
vons.  Logic,  I  fear,  is  ill  taught  in  our 
schools.  PAUL  BARTHOLOW,  New 
York,  December  10  (1915).’’ 

When  such  is  the  scarcity  of  little  essays  on 
Logic,  one  can  rightfully  fear  that  Logic  is 
not  only  “ill  taught,”  but  that  it  is  not  taught 
at  alj,  because  it  does  not  yield  to  preaching, 
lt~must  be  known.  But  this  is  not  all.  I  have 
to  add,  that  in  all  the  world’s  English  litera¬ 
ture  there  does  not  exist  a  text-book  of  formal 
Philosophy,  and,  consequently,  no  formal  Phil¬ 
osophy  is  taught  in  all  the  English-speaking 
world ! 

What  must  one  then  think  of  the  degree  of 
“Doctor  Philosophiae  ?”  A  doctorate  of  Phil¬ 
osophy,  with  Philosophy  left  out  !  We  are 
answered,  of  course,  that  Philosophy  is  being 
taught  in  all  colleges  and  universities.  They 
mean  that  something  is  being  taught  about 
Philosophy,  i.  e.,  philosophical  (metaphysical) 
speculations  of  some  German  authors,  the 
teachers  thinking  in  all  earnest  that  that  is 
Philosophy,  for  they  have  never  seen  a  text¬ 
book  of  Philosophy,  not  knowing  Latin,  and 
there  being  none  in  English.  The  difference 
between  formal  Philosophy  and  what  they  now 
call  Philosophy  is  the  same  as  between  lec¬ 
tures  on  Byzantine,  Gothic,  Greek  architecture 
and  teaching  how  to  build.  A  very  decided 
difference.  Why  the  English  Parents  lack" 
Philosophy,  now  it  must  be  clear.  It  is  a  “hard 
study,”  the  subject  does  not  lend  itself  to 
“preaching,”  as  do  philosophical  speculations, 
which  are  nothing  else  than  “preaching”  with¬ 
out  beginning  or  end,  undemonstrable,  requir¬ 
ing  no  knowledge,  giving  no  professional  quali¬ 
fication,  teaching  nothing. 

Fancy  now  whole  nations  so  educated,,  with¬ 
out  the  knowledge  of,  any  language  Tom  a 


President,  through  the  diplomats,  Secretaries 
of  State,  Governors,  Senators,  presidents  of 
colleges,  editors,  professors,  ,down  to  track¬ 
walkers.  Why  is  it  so?  Because  the  schools 
are  not  “nationalized,”  without  prescribed  cur¬ 
ricula,  set  standard,  expert  inspection,  a  free, 
uncontrolled  education,  in  which  all  the  “hard” 
studies  are  evaded,  and  counterfeits  are  freely 
substituted,  such  as  philology  for  Latin,  lec¬ 
tures  on  Hegel,  Schopenhauer,  etc.,  in  the  place 
of  formal  and  painstaking  teaching  and  exer¬ 
cising  Philosophy,  for  the  teaching  of  which 
Latin  has  been  preserved  as  its  vehicle. 

WHAT  FOLLOWS  FROM  THE  LACK  01 
PHILOSOPHY. 

Those  who  do  not  know  Latin  in  the  prope 
sense,  are  not  familiar  with  the  scholasti< 
Latin  traditions,  and,  as  a  consequence,  do  no 
understand  scholastic  terms,  such  as  univer 
sity,  college,  art,  liberal  arts,  humanities,  de 
grees,  etc.,  nor  with  scholastic  etiquette,  func 
tions  of  schools,  classification  of  knowledge 
what  are  school-subjects,  and  the  like.  Let  m 
put  to  test  some  of  these  terms. 

1.  UNIVERSITY.— Webster’s  Collegia! 
Dictionary  defines  it:  “(L.  universitas,  whol< 
universe,  a  body  corporate  or  society,  corpora 
tion,  fr.  univer sus,  universal).  1.  An  assock 
iton,  society,  guild,  or  corporation.  ( Obs . 
2.  An  institution  organized  and  incorporate 
for  the  purpose  of  imparting  instruction,  e> 
amining  students,  etc.,  in  the  higher  branches  c 
literature,  science,  art,  etc.,  and  empowered  t 
confer  degrees.  A  university  may  exist  with 
out  having  any  college  connected  with  it.” 

The  first  striking  feature  of  this  definition  i 
that  the  compiling  or  revising  “classical”  pr( 
fessors,  unfamiliar  with  practical  Latin  an 
scholasticism,  are  seeking  to  read  into  this  ol 
Roman  word  a  meaning  and  idea  of  more  tha 
a  thousand  years’  later  origin!  Otherwise  tl 
definition  clearly  shows  that  neither  the  at 
thor.  nor  the  revisers,  had  any  idea  what  tl 
word  means,  or  what  a  university  is ;  the 
simply  cannot  define  either-  the  word,  or  th 
thing.  If  they  do  not  know  either,  they  ce: 
tainly  cannot  know  the  functions  of  a  un 
yersity ;  if  they  did  know  the  function 
spheres  of  ditties  of  a  university,  they  eoul 
easily  define  it. 

Since  England  is  everlastingly  quoted  i 
America,  as  a  kind  of  ultima  ratio,  and  a 
arbitra  in  all  matters,  let  me  consider  wheth< 
English,  schoolmen  know  these  things  bett< 
than  Americans.  I  take  again  the  Education < 
Supplement  of  the  London  TIMES-  In,  r 
third  y^ar,  (Feb,.  9,  1912)  No.  18.  page  14, 
publication  is  reviewed,  “The'  Meaning  of 


5 


University,”  an  inaugural  address  delivered  to 
the  students  of  University  College  Aberystwith, 
by  Sir  Walter  Raleigh.  Amongst  the  praises 
by  the  reviewer  we  read :  ‘‘The  Professor  is 
not  to  be  lured  aside  into  any  morass  of  ver¬ 
bal  definitions.  ‘We  cannot  define  familiar  no¬ 
tions.’  Universities,  he  reminds  us,  are  one 
of  the  great  bequests  of  the  Middle  Ages,”  etc. 

Had  the  Professor  been  /steeped  in  Latin, 
as  every  decent  Latinist  is  expected  to  be,  that 
“morass”  would  have  been  his  very  element, 
and  he  would  have  plunged  into  it  like  a  duck, 
entirely  unsolicited. 

Finally,  I  could  not  quote  a  higher  English 
authority  on  this  subject  than  ALEX.  HILL, 
Dr.  Med.,  F.  R.  C.  S.,  Secretary  of  the  Con¬ 
gress  of  Universities  of  the  British  Empire, 
numbering  53  in  all,  who  in  August,  1912,  de¬ 
livered  a  lecture  at  Cambridge  on  “What  Is 
a  University?”  This  lecture  was  published  in 
the  October  number  of  ARENA,  now  defunct. 
This  learned  man  has  abundantly  explained 
what  a  University  was  not,  not  a  building,  not 
a  curriculum,  not  a  body  of  men,  but  just  zvhat 
it  was,  he  did  not  state. 

Perhaps,  after  all,  the  various  boards  of 
education,  of  trustees,  directors,  regents,  over¬ 
seers,  iaculties,  even  if  not  able  to  define  what 
a  university  may  be,  they  do  know  by  experi¬ 
ence  and  practice  what  it  is,  as  suggested  above. 
If  so,  how  does  it  happen  that  no  university  in 
all  the  English-speaking  world  has  a  set  and 
definite  curriculum,  course,  or  program?  For 
whenever  the  daily  papers  happen  to  bring  be¬ 
fore  the  community  any  new  fad,  some  of 
the  so-called  universities  (and  colleges)  are 
promptly  in  the  market  offering  “courses”  in 
the  respective  fads.  Some  of  these  institutions 
have  already  as  many  as  280  “courses,”  which 
is  far  in  excess  over  all  branches  of  human 
knowledge.  This  one  well-known  fact  is  a 
sufficient  evidence  that  our  schoolmen  do  not 
know  what  they  are  doing. 

2.  COLLEGE. — Webster’s  definition :  “F. 

college,  L.  collegium,  fr.  collega,  colleague). 
2.  A  society  of  scholars  or  friends  of  learning 
incorporated  for  study  or  instruction,  especially 
in  the  higher  branches  of  knowledge.” 

Whether  the  Roman  word  collegium  is  de¬ 
rived  from  collega,  as  the  German  lexicog¬ 
rapher  Freund  has  it.  whence  this  etymology 
is  copied  word  for  word,  that  I  leave  for  the 
German  doctors  to  discuss;  the  fact  is,  that 
the  word  College,  as  a  mediaeval  institution, 
has  nothing  in  common  with  that  question. 
This  fact  again  proves  that  the  definers  and 
revisers  are  entirely  unfamiliar  either  with 
the  word  or  with  the  thing,  or  rather  both. 

That  a  college  is  net  “a  society  of  scholars,” 


whether  the  term  be  applied  to  the  trustees, 
or  to  the  teachers,  is  well  known;  but  the 
Roman  etymology  had  to  be  met.  Neither  is 
the  material  definition  correct.  For  already  the 
university  is  credited  with  “imparting  instruc¬ 
tion  in  the  higher  branches  of  literature, 
science,  art,  etc.”  Is  then  the  college  identical 
with  the  university,  since  it  is  “incorporated 
for  study  or  instruction,  especially  in  the  higher 
branches  of  knowledge?”  We  are,  moreover, 
told  that  a  university  can  be  without  a  col¬ 
lege.  If  so,  then  the  college  can  stand  alone 
without  the  university ;  why  then  should  it  be 
with  a  university?  In  this  case,  what  does  the^ 
term  “college  department”  mean?  Is-  a  col¬ 
lege  a  “department”  of  a  university?  If  so, 
are  the  teachers  of  a  college  “Professors”  of 
the  university,  with  the  power  of  conferring 
degrees?  When  not  so  joined,  are  the  same 
teachers  also  “Professors,”  with  the  same 
rights?  If  not,  wby  not?  The  fact  is  that 
colleges  do  confer  “honorary”  degrees  in  Phil¬ 
osophy  (of  course  without  Philosophy),  and  of 
Law  (without  a  faculty  of  jurisprudence),  and 
medical  colleges  regularly  confer  the  degree  of 
doctorate  in  medicine,  as  though  “Doctor” 
meant  “a  physician.” 

So  much  will  suffice  to  show7  what  an  amount 
of  confusion  exists  in  the  minds  of  our  school¬ 
men  concerning  schools-and  their— Fespeetfve- 
functions.  They  simply  had  no  Latin  educa¬ 
tion,  all  is  English,  without  the  vaguest  idea 
of  formal  Philosophy,  consequently  there  is  a 
crying  need  of  “Revolution  in  Education.” 


“THE  HIGHER  BRANCHES  OF  KNOWL¬ 
EDGE.” 


3.  As  the  university  is  “imparting  instruc¬ 
tion — in  the  higher  branches  of  literature, 
science,  art,  etc.,”  while  the  college  imparts  in¬ 
struction,  especially  in'  the  “higher  branches  of 
knowledge,”  the  natural  inference  must  be  that 
the  college  is  a  higher  institution  than  the 
university,  for  literature  and  arts  would  seem 
to  be  less  than  the  “higher  branches  of  knowl-  • 
edge;”  for,  in  reality,  “higher”  in  this  con¬ 
nection  means  the  “highest,”  there  being  no 
counter-part  to  the  comparative  employed.  If 
this  is  not  the  case,  then,  not  only  the  etymol- 
ogy  is  mistaken  with  the  general  idea,  but  also  ■ 
the  functions  of  the  respective  schools.  ,  In 
order  to  unravel  this  tangle,  I  have  to  resort 
to  further  definitions,  and  find  out  what .  at 
least  art  means. 

a. — Webster:  ART  (F.  fr.  L.  ars,  artis,  orig. 
skill  in  joining  or  fitting.)  1.  The  employment 
of  means  to  accomplish  some  desired  end. 

2.  A  system  of  principles  and  rules  for  attain¬ 
ing  a  desired  end ;  method  of  doing  well  some 


special  work;  distinguished  from  science. — . 
pi.  Those  branches  of  learning  which  are 
taught  in  the  academical  course  of  colleges. 
5.  Learning;  study;  applied  knowledge  {Ar¬ 
chaic).  THE  LIBERAL  ARTS  ( artes  libera¬ 
tes,  which,  among  the  Romans,  c*nly  freemen 
were  permitted  to  pursue)  were,  in  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages,  grammar,  logic,  rhetoric,  arithmetic, 
geometry,  music  and  astronomy.  In  modern 
times  the  liberal  arts  include  the  sciences, 
philosophy,  history,  etc.,  which  compose  the 
course  of  academical  or  collegiate  education. 
Hence,  degrees  in  the  arts;  master  and  bache¬ 
lor  of  arts.” 

So,  then,  the  college  does  teach  arts,  though 
not  so  credited  in  the  definition,  while  the  uni¬ 
versity  does  not,  although  so  credited. 

Under  No.'  5  is  the  true  definition  of  art,  i. 
e.,  “applied  knowledge.”  be  it  bricklaying,  shoe¬ 
making,  cooking,  medicine,  astronomy,*  from 
the  time  of  Prometheus  to  the  present  day, 
despite  the  remark  of  the  compilers,  Archaic, 
Mediaeval,  Modern.  Had  the  conceptions  of 
knowledge  and  of  art  changed  from  “archaic” 
to  “mediaeval,”  and  thence  to  “modern,”  the 
compilers  would  have  to  tell  us  when,  and  by 
whom  were  they  so  changed.  Subjective 
changes,  as-  they  exist  in  the  minds  of  men  of 
Latin  philosophical  education,  and  men  with- 
'ouTr~5trCh  edrfcatioiT, 'are  only  one  conceivable ; 
these  are  truths  immutable  and  eternal.  That 
they  are  so,  and  the  compilers  are  confused 
in  their  conceptions,  I  shall  show  by  their  own 
words  in  the  following  definition  of  their  own : 

Under  the  head  of  MEDICINE  they  say: 
“1.  The  science  which  relates  to  the  prevention, 
cure,  alleviation  of  disease.” — Mark  that  they 
call  medicine  a  science  here.  Under  MEDI¬ 
CAL  they  say:  “1.  Of,  pertaining  to,  or  having 
to  do  with  the  art  of  healing  disease,  or  the 
science,  of  medicine.”  Medicine,  then,  in  their 
own  words,  is  a  science,,  and  it  is  also  an  art, 
according  to  their  own  confession ;  when  did 
then  art  cease  to  be  an  applied  knowledge? 
Is  then  this  definition  “archaic?”  is  it  “mediae¬ 
val?”  Is  art  a  different  notion,  or  conception 
in  one  age,  one  country,  with  one  race  than 
with  another?  or  the  compilers'  minds  are 
confused  ? 

If,  then,  art  is  an  applied  knowledge,  and 
students  in  colleges  study  a  score  of  “arts” 
which  must  be  knowledge  first,  and  then  be 
applied ;  then  I  ask :  Do  those  students  apply 
grammar,  logic,  chemistry,  history,  Latin, 
Greek,  mathematics,  physics,  the  same  as  phy¬ 
sicians  practice  medicine?  If  they  do  pot,  as 
they  certainly  do  not,  then  several  things  must 
follow,  to  wit : 

A.  That  nothing  a  college  teaches  is  either 
science  or  art ; 


B.  That  no  student  can  he  a  “master,”  or 
a  “bachelor”  of  any  science  or  art; 

C.  That  “Magister,”  or  “Baccalaureus 
Scientiarum”  or  “Artium”  is  no  degree  at  all; 

D.  That  a  college  has  no  right  or  authority 
to  confer  any  degrees  whatsoever. 

All  that  our  schoolmen  know  about  these 
things  are  mere  hearsay. 

That  artes  liberates  were  so  called,  because 
none  but  free-born  men  could  practice  them  in 
Rome,  is  also  but  a  hearsay.  Do  we  not  know 
that  Terentius  and  Phaedrus  were  slaves,  but 
freed  because  of  their  talents?  Were  not  all 
the  “paedagogi”  slaves  ? 

In  another  definition  our  compilers  say: 
“LIBERAL.  1.  Free  by  birth;  hence,  befitting 
a  freeman,  or  gentleman ;  refined ;  noble ;  in¬ 
dependent,”  but  they  wrongfully  add :  “Not 
servile  or  mean.”  From  this  definition  of 
theirs,  which  is  correct,  our  schoolmen  are 
radically  wrong  when  they  think  that  college- 
studies  are  artes  liberates.  Since  they  nowhere 
mention  artes  illiberales,  I  must  conclude  that 
they  have  no  knowledge  of  the  existence  of 
such  things.  If  such  were  not  the  case,  how 
could  “liberales”  exist?  Then,  if  some  artes 
are  liberates,  or  “befitting  gentlemen,”  those 
others  do  not  befit  gentlemen,  and  if  such  are 
still  practiced,  such  practitioners  are  no  gentle¬ 
men.  Hence  the  teaching  and  the  practicing  of 
certain  arts  creates  aristocrats,  the  others 
make  plebeians.  What  becomes  of  our  much 
vaunted  “democratic”  education? 

Now  let  me  take  one  more  definition,  that  of 
Science,  b.  Webster  ;  “SCIENCE.  1.  Knowl¬ 
edge;  knowledge  of  principles  and  causes; 
ascertained  truth  or  facts.  2  Accumulated  and 
established  knowledge  systematized  and  formu¬ 
lated  with  reference  to  the  discovery  of  gen¬ 
eral  truths  or  the  operation  of  general  laws; 
comprehensive,  profound,  or  philosophical 
knowledge,  especially  when  it  relates  to  the 
physical  world  and  its  phoenomena.” 

Human  knowledge  has  been  formulated  and 
classified  by  Aristoteles,  and  after  ’  him  by- 
Thomas  Aquinas,  bringing  Greek  and  Roman 
thought  in  harmony  with  Hebraic  thought,  new 
to  the  western  world,  and  his  giant  mind  con¬ 
structed  formal  Philosophy,  digested'  by  bis 
disciples,  the  Scholastics.  “Comprehensive, 
profound,  or  philosophical  knowledge,”  then,  is 
a  “digested,  systematized  knowledge”  is  Pilos- 
ophy,  the  one  which  is  not  studied  in  English- 
speaking  countries,  because  it  all  is  in  Latin, 
and  “Latin”  'here  hieans  translating  Cicero, 
parsing  Caesaf,  spelling  VirgiliuS,  and  speculat¬ 
ing  about  grammat  and  palaeography.  In  that 
System  all  that  is  known,  all  that  is  knowable, 
or  ever  caff  be  known,  is- digested; "and  pro¬ 
vided  witlr'pigeonholes  for  '  future'  facts  and 


I 


—  7 


proofs.  A  series  of  facts,  a  sphere  of  ideas 
or  thoughts,  or  knowables,  will  be  accepted  as 
knowledge,  or.  “science,”  when  they  can  be 
demonstrated  and  applied  as  an  art.-  Such  a 
demonstrated  and  applied  science  becomes  a 
profession.  Any  other  knowables  are  neither 
a  science,  nor  a  profession,  consequently  they 
cannot  become  school-subjects.  To  this  realm 
belong  all  the  conceivable  disputations  on  sub¬ 
jects  like  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  life, 
^  dreams,  friendship,  old  age ,  love,  the  German 
Staatsveissenschaften,  or  political  economy,  hy¬ 
giene,  politics,  government,  civics,  sociology, 
socialism,  or  anything  the  human  mind  can 
conceive,  among  them  journalism,  they  are  no 
new  sciences,  nor  sciences  at  all,  because  they 
are  neither  systematized,  nor  demonstrable,  nor 
applied  as  arts,  consequently  they  are  no 
school-subjects.  But  because  they  all  are  vague, 
for  the  very  reason  that  they-  cannot  be  dem¬ 
onstrated,  they  appeal  to  lecturers  mightily, 
for  they  require  no  definite  knowledge,  and 
open  an  unlimited  field  for  preaching  and  idle 
talk.  They  begin  nowhere,  they  lead  nowhere, 
they  end  nowhere,  and  after  ten  years  of 
preaching  or  listening  to  such  preachings,  one 
knows  nothing,  and  has  acquired  no  profession. 
These  subjects  produce  Kants,  Fichtes,  Hegels, 
Schopenhauers,  Hartmanns,  Cousins,  Marxes 
and  a  swarm  of  “philosophers,”  of  which  Ger¬ 
many  is  the  chief  hotbed.  Education  itself  is 
one  of  these  subjects,  because  also  undemon- 
strable.  Psychologia,  physiologia  and  the  like 
are  somewhat  different,  fo.r  they  are  sidelines 
in  Anthropologia,  therefore  Metaphysica,  and, 
as  an  art,  in  medicine ;  but  by  itself  neither 
of  them  is  a  school-subject.  When,  therefore, 
universities  and  colleges  make  “courses”  of 
such  matter,  is  another  evidence  that  our 
schoolmen  “have  heard  something.”  but  they 
do  not  know  one  thing  from  another. 

4.  The  sum  total  of  all  things  known  or 
knowable  fall  into  two  great  groups :  The 
Scientiae  Humaniores,  or  Humanitates,  and 
Aries  Liberales,  of  course,  misunderstood  by 
our  schoolmen. 

Webster:  “HUMANITY.  3.  Mental  cultiva¬ 
tion;  liberal  education.  4.  pi.  (With  the).  The 
branches  of  polite  or  elegant  learning,  as  lan¬ 
guage,  rhetoric,  poetry  and  the  ancient  clas¬ 


sics. 


Here  the  compilers  leave  the  etymology 
alone,  because  the  German  classical  dictionary 
cannot  help  them,  and  other  Latin  education 
they  do  not  possess,  and  so,  while  we  hear  a 
good  deal  about  “humanitievS,”  but  just  what 
they  are,  and  why  they  are  so  called,  nobody 
knows.  What  they  call  “humanities”  are  not 
Humanitates,  or  Scientiae  Humaniores,  but 
dtterae  umaniores  or  Politiores;  these  are  not 


contrasted  with  Artes  Liberales,  the  Humani¬ 
tates  are.  This  latter  group  is  the  main  sub¬ 
ject  of  high  education,  the  former  is  the  group 
called  Belleslettres  by  the  French.  The 
humanities  then  are  no  college  subjects  at  all, 
neither  are  the  liberal  arts. 

When  this  great  division  was  accomplished 
by  the  scholastics,  and  knowledge  became 
tractable,  first  the  Collegium,  then  the  univer¬ 
sity  was  born,  but  much  later  the  artes  libe¬ 
rales  had  to  be  taken  out,  and  the  Polytechni- 
cmn  was  born  on  equal  rank  with  the  univer¬ 
sity.  The  latter  two  high  (in  proper  sense) 
schools  are  the  institutions  of  high  education; 
to  them  belong  all  science,  or  high  knowledge; 
one  is  the  seat  of  the  humanities,  the  other 
of  the  liberal  arts ;  nothing  belongs  to  college, 
because  it  is  a  preparatory  school  for  both, 
the  complement  of  the  pro-gymna'sium,  or  higli 
school,  with  a  set  curriculum,  and  no  choice 
of  “courses.” 

Every  school-subject  must  be  a  science, 
whether  it  belongs  to  the  group  of  humanities 
or  to  that  of  the  liberal  arts,  i.  e.,  all  must 
demonstrable,  and  all  must  have  two  phasj 
One,  the  abstract,  or  pure  science,  wliic\ 
is  called  Metaphysica,  thatj.s  beyond 
a  matter  of  reason  alone ;  and  an^ 
that  is,  the  application  of  the  pu+e" 
knowledge ;  these  are  the  “learned  professions.” 
In  the  liberal  arts,  say,  architecture,  or  engin¬ 
eering,  there  are  no  doctorates,  and  so  a  Poly- 
technicum  cannot  confer  any  degrees ;  the 
scientific  portion  of  these  branches  are  com¬ 
prised  in  Metaphysica,  the  central  portion  of 
formal  Philosophy,  on  one  hand  being  Logica, 
the  art  of  thinking  and  reasoning ;  on  the  other 
Ethica,  the  science  of  moral  doctrines ;  all  else 
being  Metaphysica,  k and  an  engineer,  or  archi¬ 
tect  must  study  formal  Philosophy,  and  can 
obtain  a  doctorate  in  Philosophy. 

5.  The  degree  of  Doctor,  just  like  all  else, 
is  known  to  our  schoolmen  only  from  hear¬ 
say.  How  else  could  they  confer  a  doctorate 
indentistry,  surgery,  perhaps  also  in  pharmacy, 
or  in  other  subjects?  A  doctorate  is  but  a 
certificate  qualifying  the  recipient  to  function 
as  a  professor  of  his  subject  in  a  university. 
But  a  doctorate  can  be  given  only  for  the  pure 
science,  not  the  art  of  a  profession,  and  that 
pure  science  is  always  the  philosophy,  or  meta¬ 
physical  portion  of  the  science,  such  as  lus 
Naturae  &  Gentium  of  Ethica,  fpr  Jurispru¬ 
dence,  or  Anthropologia  with  its  subdivisions 
Psychologia,  Physiologia,  Morphologia,  etc.,  for 
Medicine.  As  these  subjects  are  university 
subjects,  it  must  be  evident  that  no  college  of 
Law  or  Medicine  can  confer  degrees,  qualify¬ 
ing  the  recipient  for  a  professorship  in  a  uni¬ 
versity.  A  special  college  or  academy  of 


-  8 


Medicine,  or  Jurisprudence,  can  only  issue  a 
license  for  their  alumni  empowering  them  to 
practice  the  art  of  that  respective  branch,  but 
such  institutions  cannot  qualify  them  as  “doc¬ 
tors.” 

When  I  speak  with  college  people  on  this 
subject,  they  invariably  tell  me  that  the  State 
Legislature  has  authorized  their  institution  to 
grand  degrees.  My  answer  is:  “Nemo  dat 
quod  non.  habet.”  Neither  a  Legislature,  nor 
a  Parliament,  king,  emperor,  boards  of  any 
kind,  can  make  me  a  physician  if  I  am  not  one. 
A  legislation  can,  and  does,  grant  the  public 
right  to  those  who  do  possess  the  private,  or 
natural  right,  to  make  use  of  their  natural,  or 
scholarly  right.  The  only  body  of  men  who 
do  enjoy  this  natural,  scholarly  right  is  the 
Respective  Facility  of  a  University,  and  no 
body  of  men,  let  alone  a  single  indi- 
idual,  whoever  he  may  be.  All  degrees  not 
)  conferred  are  null  and  void. 

Neither  a  university,  nor  a  polytechnicum 
invade  each  other’s  sphere  of  activity  and 
Actions.  Much  less  can  either,  or  even  a 
debase  itself  to  undertake  to  “teach” 
k?  illibcrales,  or  rncrccnarias,  otherwise 
fes,  commerce ,  accounting,  washing, 
management,  cooking,  stenog- 
rapFy,  "journalism,  banking,  salesmanship,  de¬ 
signing,  or  anything  else  for  money-earning 
of  the  pupils.  A  university  disqualifies  itself 
by  so  doing,  and  becomes  a  trade-school.  So, 
too,  when  a  university  does  not  teach  formal 
Philosophy  as  a  department,  nor  the  special 
philosophy  required  in  each  of  the  professions, 
all  in  Latin,  of  course,  and  if  it  teaches  the  art, 
or  applied  portion  alone,  it  has  no  right  to  con¬ 
fer  doctorates  for  such  teaching,  for  its  alumni 
are  mere  tradesmen,  for  the  art  alone  is  trade, 
not  a  profession. 

When  such  are  the  conditions  of  education 
throughout  the  English-speaking  world,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  initial  failure  in  learning  and 
teaching  Latin,  one  cannot  wonder  at  the  se¬ 
vere  words  reported  by  a  correspondent  of  the 
London  TIMES’  Educational  Supplements 
“As  a  nation  we  appear  to  educated  French¬ 
men,  inarticulate,  illiterate,  illogical,  uncritical, 
intellectually  naive,  unskilled  at  transmuting 


raw  facts  into  ideas.  Our  education  seems  ^ 
them  to  consist  partly  of  empty  verbalism,  and 
partly  of  mere  ‘bricabracology.’  ” 

PREPAREDNESS. 

The  great  European  war  has  aroused  the 
appetite  for  war  also  on  this  side  of  the  Atlan¬ 
tic  Ocean,  just  like  when  a  boy  beholds  another 
boy  eating,  begins  to  feel  hungry  and  casts 
his  covetous  eyes  on  the  apple  of  the  other 
boy.  We,  too,  must  be  “prepared,”  presumably 
for  war,  but,  of  course,  on  the  same  principle 
of  “get  rich  quick,”  pile  up  guns,  warships, 
armies.  A  nation  that  is  not  warlike  by  na¬ 
ture,  that  knows  no  restraint  and  discipline 
from  childhood;  a  nation  wdiose  mind  is  never 
occupied  with  arms,  where  every  man  is  as 
good  as  another,  where  other  ideals  wield 
man’s  actions,  will  require  at  least  two  genera¬ 
tions  before  a  new  education  could  exert  its 
influence  upon  the  minds  and  character  of  the 
multitudes. 

The  first  step,  even  towrard  orderly  peace, 
must  be  the  overhauling  public  education.  The 
clamor  against  the  inefficiency  of  our  schools 
is  a  generation  old.  Distinguished  business 
men.  like  Mr.  Carnegie  and  Mr.  Schwab,  have 
openly  declared  our  college-education  use’e^s. 
The  former  has  instituted  the  Carnegie  Foum 
elation  for  the  Advancement  of  Teaching,  do¬ 
nating  fifteen  million  dollars  for  the  purpose. 
Just  what  has  been  accomplished  in  that  direc¬ 
tion,  1  know  not ;  but  I  know  that  Latin  has 
not  been  improved,  that  formal  Philosophy  is 
still  not  taught;  that  false  degrees  are  still 
conferred ;  that  our  schoolmen  still  know 
things  from  hearsay;  that  still  nobody  has  de¬ 
fined  the  scholastic  terms,  no  teachers  of  Latin 
are  being  professionally  trained,  and  this  ini¬ 
tial  ignorance  is  still  vitiating  all  our  education. 
Yet  reform  and  revolution  must  come  from  the 
outside.  Will  the  State,  will  the  Federal  au¬ 
thorities,  or  will  the  Carnegie  Foundation  ini¬ 
tiate  the  educational  revolution? 

ARCADIVS  AVELLANVS, 

47  W.  52d  Street,  New  York  Citv. 


